The next UK HSR (High Speed Rail) project?

[The Planner]

South Coast from say Southampton up to Birmingham to link with HS2. Services from South Coast to Scotland. Never going to happen. I would wonder the level of demand.

I would love to know the journey times for that from Southampton to Birmingham and onto Scotland.

Would you go direct to Brum or try and kill two birds with one stone and head up the existing route towards London and across towards OOC? Latter would likely be better numbers wise.

 

[Shrop]

How exactly do you stop a project which there is no other alternative? Which will be the case for the ECML in the future.

When you say there is no other alternative, do you mean in terms of the brief which specified connections to Heathrow? But in any event, HSUK proposals do cater for Heathrow, they just don't have an enforced stop at OOC which HS2 looks like it will. What was it about HSUK that made it impossible to take forward?

 

[Bald Rick]

I've never been a fan of HS2, and most of the many problems that have happened with it were predicted by 2010, by people who were ignored. The result of the HS2 debacle will ensure that support for any future rail project will be a lot harder to find. This means that projects like HSUK will be for ever tarred with the HS2 brush, which is such a shame for rail development in the UK.

It’s actually the other way round.

Projects like HSUK, which despite the pretty maps and claims of their proposers, are no more than crayonisitc pipedreams.

But Joe Public, and of course, John Politician, don’t know the difference between a project that has been through years of feasibility, development and planning by scores of people, examining every potential option and looking into detailed engineering, environmental and other technical matters; compared to crayonistic pipedreams that a few retired gentlemen have spent a month or two playing about with on their laptops.

In my time in major projects, I have had to explain to politicians why the thing they’ve already committed scores / hundreds of millions of pounds on is a better answer than one they have had on an unsolicited pamphlet from an interested correspondent who thinks they know better. On more than one occasion I have been asked to have the correspondent in, and I’m afraid on every occasion they left feeling rather embarrassed after being asked a few simple questions. Such as “how do you propose to build that?”

Nevertheless such interference is a fact of life.

 

[Glenn1969]

It’s actually the other way round.

Projects like HSUK, which despite the pretty maps and claims of their proposers, are no more than crayonisitc pipedreams.

But Joe Public, and of course, John Politician, don’t know the difference between a project that has been through years of feasibility, development and planning by scores of people, examining every potential option and looking into detailed engineering, environmental and other technical matters; compared to crayonistic pipedreams that a few retired gentlemen have spent a month or two playing about with on their laptops.

In my time in major projects, I have had to explain to politicians why the thing they’ve already committed scores of millions of pounds on is a better answer than one they have had on an unsolicited pamphlet from an interested constituent who thinks they know better. On more than one occasion I have been asked to have the constituent in, and I’m afraid on every occasion they left feeling rather embarrassed after being asked a few simple questions.

Nevertheless such interference is a fact of life.

So what happens when the time comes that we realise that the whole network was built on Victorian infrastructure that can't cope with 21st century demand? I think that position is not far off and a do minimum approach to infrastructure investment will prove to be a false economy because the upgrades will just end up being done- but 20 years later than originally planned

 

[Bald Rick]

So what happens when the time comes that we realise that the whole network was built on Victorian infrastructure that can't cope with 21st century demand? I think that position is not far off and a do minimum approach to infrastructure investment will prove to be a false economy because the upgrades will just end up being done- but 20 years later than originally planned

I think you’ve missed my point.

The point is that proposals such as HSUK (and many, many other such proposals) do not help the cause of the rail industry when proposing new / upgraded lines.

 

[MattRat]

When you say there is no other alternative, do you mean in terms of the brief which specified connections to Heathrow? But in any event, HSUK proposals do cater for Heathrow, they just don't have an enforced stop at OOC which HS2 looks like it will. What was it about HSUK that made it impossible to take forward?

I was more referring to the ECML. If it's full and can't be upgraded further, a new line will have to be built, no ifs are butts.

 

[Shrop]

It’s actually the other way round.

Projects like HSUK, which despite the pretty maps and claims of their proposers, are no more than crayonisitc pipedreams.

But Joe Public, and of course, John Politician, don’t know the difference between a project that has been through years of feasibility, development and planning by scores of people, examining every potential option and looking into detailed engineering, environmental and other technical matters; compared to crayonistic pipedreams that a few retired gentlemen have spent a month or two playing about with on their laptops.

In my time in major projects, I have had to explain to politicians why the thing they’ve already committed scores / hundreds of millions of pounds on is a better answer than one they have had on an unsolicited pamphlet from an interested correspondent who thinks they know better. On more than one occasion I have been asked to have the correspondent in, and I’m afraid on every occasion they left feeling rather embarrassed after being asked a few simple questions. Such as “how do you propose to build that?”

Nevertheless such interference is a fact of life.

Thanks, but what is it about the HSUK proposal that made it such a failure in the minds of experts?

 

[JamesT]

I was more referring to the ECML. If it's full and can't be upgraded further, a new line will have to be built, no ifs are butts.

I wonder if at the point the ECML is deemed in need of relieving, HS2’s Eastern Leg might reappear as the solution.

 

[zwk500]

I was more referring to the ECML. If it's full and can't be upgraded further, a new line will have to be built, no ifs are butts.

In a technical sense, it could always be upgraded further. The decision point is usually when upgrading the line costs more than just building a new one.

 

[MattRat]

In a technical sense, it could always be upgraded further. The decision point is usually when upgrading the line costs more than just building a new one.

Or physical limitations. There isn't room to 8 track the WCML, for example.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks, but what is it about the HSUK proposal that made it such a failure in the minds of experts?

It’s a lot more railway (= lots more expensive) than HS2, the crayon lines are drawn right through some very residential areas (Hatfield, South St Albans, east Watford, Luton to name but four), the “high speed” wouldn’t be if it followed the motorways (which have much tighter curves), and it fails to take into account the existing traffic or capacity of the existing lines.

That’s just for starters.

 

[Glenn1969]

It’s a lot more railway (= lots more expensive) than HS2, the crayon lines are drawn right through some very residential areas (Hatfield, South St Albans, east Watford, Luton to name but four), the “high speed” wouldn’t be if it followed the motorways (which have much tighter curves), and it fails to take into account the existing traffic or capacity of the existing lines.

That’s just for starters.

I thought it was a given that something has to be done about the ECML sooner rather than later and the cost of works at Welwyn make make a new line more viable than it otherwise would be?

 

[JamesT]

I thought it was a given that something has to be done about the ECML sooner rather than later and the cost of works at Welwyn make make a new line more viable than it otherwise would be?

Part of the justification for HS2 is that it is the WCML that is the line in most urgent need of relief. Hence HS2 builds direct lines between London, Birmingham, and Manchester.
HSUK is relying on some unspecified upgrades to the WCML to serve Birmingham. (Presumably running into the currently jam-packed New Street). In a reverse of IRP, Manchester and Liverpool are served by a spur from HSUK’s trunk which is on the other side of the Pennines.
The ECML may well require relief in the future, but designing a high speed network which appears to put that as the primary consideration seems to be somewhat tail wagging the dog.

 

[Shrop]

It’s a lot more railway (= lots more expensive) than HS2, the crayon lines are drawn right through some very residential areas (Hatfield, South St Albans, east Watford, Luton to name but four), the “high speed” wouldn’t be if it followed the motorways (which have much tighter curves), and it fails to take into account the existing traffic or capacity of the existing lines.

That’s just for starters.

Maybe you misunderstand my point. Wasn't the guy who designed HSUK a highly experienced rail engineer? I'm not, I admit, but when you say it's a lot more railway, well that's blatantly obvious because it was designed for the country, not just to relieve part of WCML plus a bit more. Surely it's obvious to compare HSUK with HS2 on a like for like basis, in which case the comparison should start with simply London to Birmingham via the Chiltern route or via the M1 corridor. What seems far from equal is one project having massive backing, while the other was, relatively speaking, two guys just bashing out some good ideas. But what if they had had the huge early funding of HS2?
And have you sought responses from HSUK about your reasons why it was a poor design?
Sorry if this all sounds provocative, but I genuinely don't get why HS2 was developed how it was, unless Heathrow really was a massive imperative early on.

 

[JamesT]

Maybe you misunderstand my point. Wasn't the guy who designed HSUK a highly experienced rail engineer? I'm not, I admit, but when you say it's a lot more railway, well that's blatantly obvious because it was designed for the country, not just to relieve part of WCML plus a bit more. Surely it's obvious to compare HSUK with HS2 on a like for like basis, in which case the comparison should start with simply London to Birmingham via the Chiltern route or via the M1 corridor. What seems far from equal is one project having massive backing, while the other was, relatively speaking, two guys just bashing out some good ideas. But what if they had had the huge early funding of HS2?
And have you sought responses from HSUK about your reasons why it was a poor design?
Sorry if this all sounds provocative, but I genuinely don't get why HS2 was developed how it was, unless Heathrow really was a massive imperative early on.

HS2’s ‘massive backing’ is the fact that they’re the official government project for this. The people working on HS2 will also be experienced railway engineers, I don’t see any reason to believe HSUK have better credentials. https://webarchive.nationalarchives...k/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/ is one of their early reports to the government of the day. It includes details on the route selection process, which did include the M1 corridor in the long list.
Connectivity to Heathrow was part of the original remit, so it will have had some bearing on the choices.

 

[SynthD]

The hsuk plan is a wavy and therefore slow line. That’s why it isn’t popular and was never backed by much. That much stood out to me before reading about the housing it would wipe out.

 

[Shrop]

HS2’s ‘massive backing’ is the fact that they’re the official government project for this. The people working on HS2 will also be experienced railway engineers, I don’t see any reason to believe HSUK have better credentials. https://webarchive.nationalarchives...k/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/ is one of their early reports to the government of the day. It includes details on the route selection process, which did include the M1 corridor in the long list.
Connectivity to Heathrow was part of the original remit, so it will have had some bearing on the choices.

Thanks for these comments. I don't claim that HSUK designers had better credentials, but I do wonder how HS2 became the Government's official project. It always seemed that HS2 was selected on a brief which included too much weight on Heathrow, and which quickly dismissed alternatives in haste rather than with proper consideration. I've looked at some of the reports which, along with some of the comments here and in previous threads, are dismissive in a way that looks like that of ministers who are presently defending Partygate, ie toeing the party line over-rides all other reasoning.
I've never suggested that HSUK was the perfect project, it had much that was in serious need of review and development. However I do maintain that it was shut out far too quickly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2022 ==

The hsuk plan is a wavy and therefore slow line. That’s why it isn’t popular and was never backed by much. That much stood out to me before reading about the housing it would wipe out.

HSUK was a project for the country, and it needed development. HS2 had a brief of getting from London to Birmingham via Heathrow, and anything beyond Birmingham was an afterthought. Or maybe that's too cynical?

 

[EastisECML]

Didn't HSUK say that continental gauge trains could use the King Edward bridge into Newcastle Central while signallers prevented all other trains from using it?

 

[mike57]

HSUK was a project for the country, and it needed development. HS2 had a brief of getting from London to Birmingham via Heathrow, and anything beyond Birmingham was an afterthought. Or maybe that's too cynical?

I have to say the route taken by HS2 didn't seem like the obvious one. Something following roughly the Midland Main Line/M1 (When I say roughly, I mean general direction, rather than an actual route) and terminating at Kings Cross/St Pancras would have seemed more logical. Benefits at the London end would have been an easier interchange with a wider range of onward services, including HS1 service/Eurostar and Thameslink to South London/South Coast. Crossrail should also have been routed via Kings Cross as well, you then have connections east and west including Heathrow.

Going north you would then have a spurs west to Birmingham, east to Nottingham etc and split to Manchester and Leeds. If the Manchester/Leeds split was well north then you also solve the Leeds Manchester High speed link problem at the same time. I know this is more of a 'parallel universe' so when the area around Kings Cross was run down and needed development the land could have been acquired. This is speculative discussion after all... Running a 'spine' up the middle of country would seem to me to made more sense, given the relatively long and narrow nature of the UK. Connectivity between the spine and towns and cities along the way would then be a mix of new build for places like Birmingham, and improvements to existing lines for the smaller places.

Given where we are now this is pie in the sky, but making Kings Cross/St Pancras the 'London Hub' is a decision that could have been taken when it was decided to terminate HS1 there. Given where the countries finances are post covid I would even doubt if Manchester is reached in the timescales being put forwards.

 

[swt_passenger]

Given where we are now this is pie in the sky, but making Kings Cross/St Pancras the 'London Hub' is a decision that could have been taken when it was decided to terminate HS1 there. Given where the countries finances are post covid I would even doubt if Manchester is reached in the timescales being put forwards.

Where would you have put the station?

 

[MattRat]

HSUK was a project for the country, and it needed development. HS2 had a brief of getting from London to Birmingham via Heathrow, and anything beyond Birmingham was an afterthought. Or maybe that's too cynical?

A little. It was also to relieve the WCML. It was the only solution after 6 tracking worked for only 5-10 years. HSUK focused on the ECML, and while that might be important to relieve in the future, it isn't today, so of course HS2 was picked.

It could have been done better of course, but that's another discussion.

 

[mike57]

Where would you have put the station?

Proir to redevelopment the Pancras Square area would have been a possible location. Failing that maybe the area to the east of Kings Cross. Bear in mind the whole area was pretty run down in the 80s, and in the spirit of speculation/parallel universe it could have provided a 'London Rail Hub'. But it would have required a commitment to investment in rail at a time when the rail industry was seen as a thing of the past, even although the French were starting their TGV programme. What I am saying is a bit of vision 30+ years ago could have provided a much more convenient and connected solution, but I accept that the political landscape of the day didn't see a future for rail.

Imagine if you had Crossrail, Thameslink, HS1, son of HS2 and the ECML all operating from the same complex, with one change a lot of journeys which are currently tedious would become simple.

Edit: Maybe if you had used the area to the east of Kings Cross for HS1, the the area currently occupied by HS1 could have been used for HS2.

 

[Shrop]

A little. It was also to relieve the WCML. It was the only solution after 6 tracking worked for only 5-10 years. HSUK focused on the ECML, and while that might be important to relieve in the future, it isn't today, so of course HS2 was picked.

It could have been done better of course, but that's another discussion.

Was HS2 really only to relieve WCML? Surely if that was its only objective, then that was pretty short sighted given the way passenger numbers have been rising for many years (pre-Covid but now largely recovered and continuing to rise) across many more routes. I mean, HSUK relieves overcrowding on Trans Pennine routes, XC routes etc, as well as addressing the North South divide, stimulating the Northern Powerhouse etc, would it really have been sensible for any authority to allow HS2 to focus on WCML alone?

 

[quantinghome]

Maybe you misunderstand my point. Wasn't the guy who designed HSUK a highly experienced rail engineer? I'm not, I admit, but when you say it's a lot more railway, well that's blatantly obvious because it was designed for the country, not just to relieve part of WCML plus a bit more. Surely it's obvious to compare HSUK with HS2 on a like for like basis, in which case the comparison should start with simply London to Birmingham via the Chiltern route or via the M1 corridor. What seems far from equal is one project having massive backing, while the other was, relatively speaking, two guys just bashing out some good ideas. But what if they had had the huge early funding of HS2?
And have you sought responses from HSUK about your reasons why it was a poor design?
Sorry if this all sounds provocative, but I genuinely don't get why HS2 was developed how it was, unless Heathrow really was a massive imperative early on.

I worked with the engineer in question very occasionally prior to his retirement. Based on my (limited) experience working with him and others' accounts he is certainly an experienced (civil) rail engineer who is competent in his area of expertise. However, based on his pronouncements through HSUK and the opinion of other rail engineering professionals, I get the impression that he is unwilling to trust other rail professionals in areas where he is not expert.

HSUK's proposals originated at a very early stage of the development of HS2 when Network Rail (I think it was them anyway) were looking at different possible configurations - the "Y", the "reverse S", the "reverse F", the "inverse A". The chap behind HSUK was in favour of the "reverse F", but it was rejected in favour of the "Y" proposal, and he has been conducted a rather quixotic campaign against HS2 ever since. The tone of HSUK's various reports and proposals come across as 'we know best, everyone else is an idiot', which is hardly the way to proceed if you're looking to win people over to your proposal (as Arup successfully did with HS1).

 

[JamesT]

Was HS2 really only to relieve WCML? Surely if that was its only objective, then that was pretty short sighted given the way passenger numbers have been rising for many years (pre-Covid but now largely recovered and continuing to rise) across many more routes. I mean, HSUK relieves overcrowding on Trans Pennine routes, XC routes etc, as well as addressing the North South divide, stimulating the Northern Powerhouse etc, would it really have been sensible for any authority to allow HS2 to focus on WCML alone?

The original remit given to HS2 as documented in the oldest letter (last on the list) - https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2remit/

The Secretary of State for Transport has incorporated the Company in the hope and expectation that it will advise him on the development of proposals for a new railway from London to the West Midlands and potentially beyond,

So that's essentially London to Birmingham. The second letter then asks for further work to look at corridors beyond the original to Manchester and Leeds and also to consider how to work with Network Rail's work on Heathrow connectivity.

HS2 are a company set up by the Government, their remit is set by the politicians. It's not that they were 'allowed' to focus on WCML relief, but that was given as their primary objective (though with the caveat that it shouldn't preclude extending into a full-blown high-speed network later).

 

[Shrop]

I worked with the engineer in question very occasionally prior to his retirement. Based on my (limited) experience working with him and others' accounts he is certainly an experienced (civil) rail engineer who is competent in his area of expertise. However, based on his pronouncements through HSUK and the opinion of other rail engineering professionals, I get the impression that he is unwilling to trust other rail professionals in areas where he is not expert.

HSUK's proposals originated at a very early stage of the development of HS2 when Network Rail (I think it was them anyway) were looking at different possible configurations - the "Y", the "reverse S", the "reverse F", the "inverse A". The chap behind HSUK was in favour of the "reverse F", but it was rejected in favour of the "Y" proposal, and he has been conducted a rather quixotic campaign against HS2 ever since. The tone of HSUK's various reports and proposals come across as 'we know best, everyone else is an idiot', which is hardly the way to proceed if you're looking to win people over to your proposal (as Arup successfully did with HS1).

Yes, I'm pretty ambivalent about the HSUK approach. "We know best, everyone else is an idiot" works well in some circles (eg. Parliament or big contractors facing down small enterprises), but it's not so good when you're already the underdog. If it was this approach that lost them the interest of others that would be a great shame, given that their ideas had merit and a lot of potential for development, if only they had been taken seriously.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2022 ==

The original remit given to HS2 as documented in the oldest letter (last on the list) - https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2remit/

So that's essentially London to Birmingham. The second letter then asks for further work to look at corridors beyond the original to Manchester and Leeds and also to consider how to work with Network Rail's work on Heathrow connectivity.

HS2 are a company set up by the Government, their remit is set by the politicians. It's not that they were 'allowed' to focus on WCML relief, but that was given as their primary objective (though with the caveat that it shouldn't preclude extending into a full-blown high-speed network later).

Thanks for those links, yes this confirms the talk at the time, but I'd not seen these letters. Such a shame that London to Birmingham had to be a given with anything else as optional extras, without seeing this as just the first stage of a long term rail project for the UK.
Government has always seen transport as something of an irritation, you only have to watch the Bed of Nails episode of Yes Minister to see that such thinking among politicians has been in evidence for at least 40 years. It followed that those who were shouting at the time that Heathrow was being given too much importance were dismissed too readily, and by the time the importance of Heathrow was downgraded, enough had been invested into the Chiltern route that it would have been embarrassing to change the proposals, even though construction was then still years into the future. Therefore a lot of weight has since been put on the importance of Crossrail to HS2 because it ties in with the Chiltern route and helps to mask why it was chosen.
Also of course, the UK political system is such that schemes that demonstrate benefits within the term of Government weigh more importantly than long term benefits for the country. All of this mitigates strongly against a rail project for the whole of the UK, and in favour of a relatively small scheme even when it a) risks upsetting vast swathes of the population, as the Chiltern route choice subsequently has, b) goes seriously over budget, which was always predicted and which we all know about, and c) stands a good chance of having its benefits decimated, which has now also happened with the Eastern leg ruled out.
Ah, maybe there is something to be said for the Chinese way of promoting rail projects, and they really aren't quite so nasty in the way they do things to their public when promoting railways, as a lot of people think.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe you misunderstand my point. Wasn't the guy who designed HSUK a highly experienced rail engineer? I'm not, I admit, but when you say it's a lot more railway, well that's blatantly obvious because it was designed for the country, not just to relieve part of WCML plus a bit more. Surely it's obvious to compare HSUK with HS2 on a like for like basis, in which case the comparison should start with simply London to Birmingham via the Chiltern route or via the M1 corridor. What seems far from equal is one project having massive backing, while the other was, relatively speaking, two guys just bashing out some good ideas. But what if they had had the huge early funding of HS2?
And have you sought responses from HSUK about your reasons why it was a poor design?
Sorry if this all sounds provocative, but I genuinely don't get why HS2 was developed how it was, unless Heathrow really was a massive imperative early on.

a few points here.

1) HSUK isn’t designed. Or anywhere near a design. Regardless of what it’s proposers suggest.
2) the two gentlemen who proposed HSUK are long since retired. Both are engineers. I worked with one of them 20 years ago. Whilst both are, I’m sure, competent engineers, neither of them are experienced transport planners.
3) they propose building much more infrastructure than HS2, yet somehow it’s cheaper. That two retired gents can somehow produce a robust cost estimate in their studies in a way that is in anyway comparable to a fully costed, risked and assured estimate that has been years in the making is comical.

In the early days of what became HS2, all manner of business objectives and thence broad route options were considered. I know as I did some of them. The government of the day chose what had the best case - relieving the busiest transport corridor in the country, ie London - West Mids and on to the north west. Government then remitted an organisation to develop this - initially NR then HS2 when it was ‘inaugurated’. The Goverment did give backing to produce the best possible answer - which it has.

 

[Shrop]

a few points here.

1) HSUK isn’t designed. Or anywhere near a design. Regardless of what it’s proposers suggest.

Very dismissive and without any justification.

2) the two gentlemen who proposed HSUK are long since retired. Both are engineers. I worked with one of them 20 years ago. Whilst both are, I’m sure, competent engineers, neither of them are experienced transport planners.

Transport Planners are a breed of their own. I've met plenty in the roads industry and they're capable of a lot of tunnel vision.

3) they propose building much more infrastructure than HS2, yet somehow it’s cheaper.

That claim is surely just to grab attention. But per mile it probably is cheaper.

That two retired gents can somehow produce a robust cost estimate in their studies in a way that is in anyway comparable to a fully costed, risked and assured estimate that has been years in the making is comical.

Again, it's to grab attention. Plenty of people including our leaders in Parliament make all sorts of comical claims.

In the early days of what became HS2, all manner of business objectives and thence broad route options were considered. I know as I did some of them. The government of the day chose what had the best case - relieving the busiest transport corridor in the country, ie London - West Mids and on to the north west. Government then remitted
an organisation to develop this - initially NR then HS2 when it was ‘inaugurated’. The Goverment did give backing to produce the best possible answer - which it has.

I respect your experience in the rail industry, I genuinely do, but I can't convince myself tha HSUK wasn't dismissed for the wrong reasons. Or that HS2 made it to fruition for the wrong reasons. I assume you've seen my reasoning for saying this upthread?

 

[Bald Rick]

Very dismissive and without any justification.

It is dismissive, yes. But prove me wrong!

Transport Planners are a breed of their own. I've met plenty in the roads industry and they're capable of a lot of tunnel vision.

Transport Planners might say the same about some engineers.…

That claim is surely just to grab attention.

Which is a problem. When an attention grabbing claim can be so easily dismissed at the simplest level of scrutiny, it immediately leads to the statement “if that is the wrong number, how can I possibly believe any other part of your proposal.” (Something which I have heard asked, more than once, to people asking for Government money)

Again, it's to grab attention. Plenty of people including our leaders in Parliament make all sorts of comical claims.

I’m not sure that’s a role model that should be encouraged.

but I can't convince myself tha HSUK wasn't dismissed for the wrong reasons. Or that HS2 made it to fruition for the wrong reasons. I assume you've seen my reasoning for saying this upthread?

But why just HSUK? There have, no doubt, been literally hundreds of alternatives proposed by ”others”. HSUK just has a better software package and someone who can put out press releases. Should Government consider them all, when it has already done the considering and decided what it wants to buy?

To put it domestically, if you decide that you need more space at home, and that after talking it through with the wife, engaging an an architect to do some preliminary work, you decide to build a kitchen extension with a new utility room on the west side of your house; do you then listen to a cowboy builder who turns up unannounced on the doorstep, says that you are wrong and that what you actually want is a bigger extension on the east and north sides of your house with a large study, a granny annex and a downstairs loo?

 

[quantinghome]

2) the two gentlemen who proposed HSUK are long since retired. Both are engineers. I worked with one of them 20 years ago. Whilst both are, I’m sure, competent engineers, neither of them are experienced transport planners.

They are competent in their area of engineering expertise. But one crucial thing competent engineers must understand is the limits of their own technical competency. Unfortunately at least one of the engineers behind HSUK does not appear to grasp this, with consequences which do no favours to his professional reputation. It's not just transport planning they don't understand, it's other civil engineering disciplines as well.

As an example, he was cited as an expert in the 2020 legal case brought by Hero Granger-Taylor, claiming that the tunnelling at Euston would cause a catastrophic collapse of a wall. He was evidently pretty confident and released his calculations to the New Civil Engineer (https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...claim-released-as-appeal-rejected-25-06-2020/) and I had a look at them. The retaining wall calculation was reasonable - as you'd expect from an experienced civil engineer. But it was very clear he had little to no experience of tunnel design and that was where his calculation fell down. Tunnel design is somewhat of a niche area in civil engineering so it's understandable that he didn't have the knowledge to do a competent calculation. Unfortunately that didn't stop him, which reveals an alarming lack of self-understanding.

I can't convince myself tha HSUK wasn't dismissed for the wrong reasons.

Based on the above, also the responses I've seen from other rail professionals and the demeanour of HSUK in general, I have to conclude that we have a case of two retired engineers who think they know better than everyone else, and they really don't.

If you want to look at how to go about offering a counterproposal to the route of a high speed line, Arup's work on HS1 is an exemplar. Arup had the breadth of professional expertise and understood the need to get political buy-in. HSUK have none of this. Even if their proposals had merit (and having looked at them for some years now I really don't think they do), they have gone about it in a completely counterproductive way. What is really telling is that no engineering design firm has picked up their proposal. If their ideas had such obvious merit, you would expect Arup or somebody to bring them on board and develop the concept.

It's sad to see engineers wasting their retirements and professional reputations tilting at windmills.